Greenspan backs bank nationalisation

[sealybobo]

These two paragraphs pose a bit of a conundrum for you. You admit that the responsibility of the individual in providing for their standard of living is realitvely minimal compared to the business. Unfortuntaely such a system depends on said society being composed of some really altruistic people. In a nut shell a person's level of responsibility in your make believe world is rather minimals, yet it depends on at least some individuals to be motivated enough to not only provide for himself but a lot of other people. that sound realistic to you?





I'm sure you could post many articles. that's generally what people who believe something do. they seek out only the material that supports their position and ignore the rest. You have to know that there is a tradeoff. If you become more protectionist you will have inflation, which means there is a trade of between jobs and people's buying power relative to the value of our currency.

Yes, so you don't do too much protectionism so as not to cause too much inflation so you maintain a good economy. We can deal with all the things you worry about. And it is amazing that you Republicans seem to know so much about economics but you can't even put it together in your minds that your own party is the party that brought down the economy with their huge tax breaks for themselves while doubling up on spending. Add to that the illegals they hired and jobs they sent overseas.

You don't have to preach to us what will hurt an economy. You showed us for 8 years. We're done listening to Idiotanomics 101.

So what we don't do is let things continue the way they are because the way things are now is affecting the middle class. And again, the middle class is the creation of Democracy or Democratic Government. In a free market without regulations, the middle class will disappear. It is disappearing now, thanks to the GOP.

Now lets see if the Dems will save it, or will they continue on serving corporations over us. I doubt it. If they do, they'll lose. Dems don't have the luxury of getting the benefit of the doubt like the GOP got the last 8 years. Because the GOP are better at terrorism/war? HA!

Did you see the guy on the Daily Show? He wrote the book about how Petraius, behind Bush's back, paid the Sunni's to stop killing us. It was a great interview. I need to get the book.

Until you accept the cupibablity of everyone in this mess, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS like Carter and Frank there is little point conversing with you. I agree whole heartedly that if Bush wanted to cut taxes he shoulda reigned in spending. The problem with your Bush bashing and basically saying the last 8 years got it wrong which somehow inherently means Obama will get it right, is Obama is doing exactly the same thing, just tilting the scales a little more, less in favor of tax cuts and shit load of spending which last time I checked has never turned an economy around.

Really? Because it seems like that's exactly what Reagan did to become a God in your eyes. He spent his way out of his recession.

He also bailed out the Big 3. Don't forget that.

Obama is doing EXACTLY what Reagan did. So you should love it.

And no, he is not doing exactly what Bush did. Did he give Paulson & the banks $350 billion and then close his eyes while they stole it?

And excuse me, but Obama just uncovered a UBS scandal where the rich were avoiding paying taxes. So since we both agree that Dems and GOP love to spend, at least Obama is going to tax the rich so the entire tax burden doesn't fall on us and the debt. That alone makes Democrats much smarter than the GOP.

Plus, we don't spend as much as you guys do. Sure Obama has to spend, but he has to in order to get out of the hole Bush put him in.

Clinton gave Bush a surplus and Bush doubled the debt.

I bet Obama's end numbers will be better than Bush's. Every aspect of the economy will be better. Wages, unemployment, dow jones, housing, etc.

 

[sealybobo]

Here, BERN... why don't you just take a gander at some video fun.


YouTube - MAYOR VIRG BERNERO OF LANSING MICHIGAN TEARS INTO FOX ANCHOR - HILARIOUS!!!

You'll have to forgive me if I don't think an assembly line worker making $70/hr in wages and benefits is underpaid. Perhaps you'd like to actually respond to my previous post now.

Why when your numbers are inflated/inaccurate?

It turns out, Toyota and Honda employees only make $2 less an hour than do union Big 3 employees.

PS. Healthcare costs went up 191% since Bush got into office. So if healthcare plays into that $70 figure, consider that none of us are enjoying that raise you gave us, because the healthcare costs went up 191%.

So thanks for paying the out of control healthcare costs. Remember the GOP defend the status quo on this. They don't want to fix this. They don't want to take this cost off the employers plate. They must be anti corporation!!!

 

[Bern80]

Yes, so you don't do too much protectionism so as not to cause too much inflation so you maintain a good economy. We can deal with all the things you worry about. And it is amazing that you Republicans seem to know so much about economics but you can't even put it together in your minds that your own party is the party that brought down the economy with their huge tax breaks for themselves while doubling up on spending. Add to that the illegals they hired and jobs they sent overseas.

You don't have to preach to us what will hurt an economy. You showed us for 8 years. We're done listening to Idiotanomics 101.

So what we don't do is let things continue the way they are because the way things are now is affecting the middle class. And again, the middle class is the creation of Democracy or Democratic Government. In a free market without regulations, the middle class will disappear. It is disappearing now, thanks to the GOP.

Now lets see if the Dems will save it, or will they continue on serving corporations over us. I doubt it. If they do, they'll lose. Dems don't have the luxury of getting the benefit of the doubt like the GOP got the last 8 years. Because the GOP are better at terrorism/war? HA!

Did you see the guy on the Daily Show? He wrote the book about how Petraius, behind Bush's back, paid the Sunni's to stop killing us. It was a great interview. I need to get the book.

Until you accept the cupibablity of everyone in this mess, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS like Carter and Frank there is little point conversing with you. I agree whole heartedly that if Bush wanted to cut taxes he shoulda reigned in spending. The problem with your Bush bashing and basically saying the last 8 years got it wrong which somehow inherently means Obama will get it right, is Obama is doing exactly the same thing, just tilting the scales a little more, less in favor of tax cuts and shit load of spending which last time I checked has never turned an economy around.

Really? Because it seems like that's exactly what Reagan did to become a God in your eyes. He spent his way out of his recession.

He also bailed out the Big 3. Don't forget that.

Obama is doing EXACTLY what Reagan did. So you should love it.

And no, he is not doing exactly what Bush did. Did he give Paulson & the banks $350 billion and then close his eyes while they stole it?

And excuse me, but Obama just uncovered a UBS scandal where the rich were avoiding paying taxes. So since we both agree that Dems and GOP love to spend, at least Obama is going to tax the rich so the entire tax burden doesn't fall on us and the debt. That alone makes Democrats much smarter than the GOP.

Plus, we don't spend as much as you guys do. Sure Obama has to spend, but he has to in order to get out of the hole Bush put him in.

Clinton gave Bush a surplus and Bush doubled the debt.

I bet Obama's end numbers will be better than Bush's. Every aspect of the economy will be better. Wages, unemployment, dow jones, housing, etc.

If your last statement is true he's starting himself behind the 8 ball quite a bit. Until you can show you have some sense of objectivity there again is no point in debating with you. I could tell you and show the sky was blue and you would say it's red. that's kinda what debating with you is like.

 

[editec]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

 

[Shogun]

Here, BERN... why don't you just take a gander at some video fun.


YouTube - MAYOR VIRG BERNERO OF LANSING MICHIGAN TEARS INTO FOX ANCHOR - HILARIOUS!!!

You'll have to forgive me if I don't think an assembly line worker making $70/hr in wages and benefits is underpaid. Perhaps you'd like to actually respond to my previous post now.

Respond to what? Your OPINION? YOu know goddamn well what I think about your OPINION. See, this is where we move into the "Evidence" phase, Bern. You know.. Like THIS:


Wanted: Lousy job, low pay
In a tight labor market, even less desirable job postings solicit thousands of responses.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Desperate for a job and willing to take almost anything with a paycheck? Take a number.

Between the increase in overall job seekers and the reduction in the number of jobs available, competition for even the least desirable jobs has become much steeper.

Traffic to job search site Indeed.com is up 26% in the last quarter and jumped 98% from last year, according to the company.

"People are so thirsty for anything that resembles a job out there," said Dave Sanford, executive vice president of client services for Winter, Wyman, a staffing firm based in Waltham, Mass, "that candidates are applying to every opening that is even remotely possible."

Even less desirable jobs solicit thousands of responses - Feb. 19, 2009


Paying attention yet, BERN? You don't think 70/hr is underpaid? WHOOPTFUCIKINGDO. I happen to think that 7 figure salary empty suits are OVERpaid. I don't see you rationalizing THEIR cut in lifestyle standard. Hell, at the very idea of a 500k salary cap for capitalizta pigs who have their fucking hands out begging the Gov for money HOW MANY OF YOUR KIND WERE BUSY SCREAMING BLOODY FUCKING MURDER? While FAILING, no less. Which, is the point of the video above (that Im sure you didn't bother watching). You want to de-value labor while totally ignoring the culpability of the bourgeois class. Too fucking bad.It's readily apparent what your economic OPINION has done to this economy. You'll have to excuse the rest of America for refusing to be disposable tampons in your caviar class wealth cycle. And, when Greenspan and the rest of the usual toadies are busy admitting their failures AND the necessity of what you'd otherwise be calling socialism.. well, I guess you'll have to forgive me for rubbing your nose in it a little.

 

[Andrew2382]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

noone ever said thats what they make...however its what the company is paying out...it's a lot of money

 

[Bern80]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

'Personally' when you start running with an inaccurate assumption, you look like a moron. I know exactly what the $70 represents, thanks. In reality it is the opposite that is misleading. When people like yourself and Shogun bemoan low wages you often conveniently leave out the value of the benefits they provide on top of your base pay.

 

[Shogun]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

noone ever said thats what they make...however its what the company is paying out...it's a lot of money

So are executive salaries to failures. When have you ever seen a capitalista rationalize taking health care away from an empty 7 figure suit?

 

[editec]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

noone ever said thats what they make...however its what the company is paying out...it's a lot of money

Nonsense.

Bernie just attempted to pass that off as truth in this thread.

 

[Bern80]

Paying attention yet, BERN? You don't think 70/hr is underpaid? WHOOPTFUCIKINGDO. I happen to think that 7 figure salary empty suits are OVERpaid. I don't see you rationalizing THEIR cut in lifestyle standard. Hell, at the very idea of a 500k salary cap for capitalizta pigs who have their fucking hands out begging the Gov for money HOW MANY OF YOUR KIND WERE BUSY SCREAMING BLOODY FUCKING MURDER? While FAILING, no less. Which, is the point of the video above (that Im sure you didn't bother watching). You want to de-value labor while totally ignoring the culpability of the bourgeois class. Too fucking bad.It's readily apparent what your economic OPINION has done to this economy. You'll have to excuse the rest of America for refusing to be disposable tampons in your caviar class wealth cycle. And, when Greenspan and the rest of the usual toadies are busy admitting their failures AND the necessity of what you'd otherwise be calling socialism.. well, I guess you'll have to forgive me for rubbing your nose in it a little.

I didn't watch it? Where do you think I got the $70/hr from. There are plenty of CEOs that have made mistakes and it was just as enraging to me as it probably was to you to see some GMC CEO fly in on a lear jet and beg congress for moeny. Just because I value low end labor different than you doesn't mean I don't also have problems with the way some CEOs run their companies. You can't say what my opinoin has done or not done to the economy because you haven't taken the time to understand what it is. the chicklen shit that you are has assumed my position for your own convenience.

 

[Andrew2382]

thats a good question and I'll see if I can look into it... I don't know if the 70 dollar number counts just for labor only or for the whole company including exec salaries and retirees etc...

I don't know

 

[Bern80]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

noone ever said thats what they make...however its what the company is paying out...it's a lot of money

Nonsense.

Bernie just attempted to pass that off as truth in this thread.

No, 'Bernie' didn't. Perhaps you need to examine what YOU did before pointing the finger. You did the same thing you seem to do quite often. I'll spell it out for you. When someone writes something, instead of crtically examining what they are saying you assume the position that will make it easiest for you to make an argument or just plain make yourself right.

 

[Shogun]

Paying attention yet, BERN? You don't think 70/hr is underpaid? WHOOPTFUCIKINGDO. I happen to think that 7 figure salary empty suits are OVERpaid. I don't see you rationalizing THEIR cut in lifestyle standard. Hell, at the very idea of a 500k salary cap for capitalizta pigs who have their fucking hands out begging the Gov for money HOW MANY OF YOUR KIND WERE BUSY SCREAMING BLOODY FUCKING MURDER? While FAILING, no less. Which, is the point of the video above (that Im sure you didn't bother watching). You want to de-value labor while totally ignoring the culpability of the bourgeois class. Too fucking bad.It's readily apparent what your economic OPINION has done to this economy. You'll have to excuse the rest of America for refusing to be disposable tampons in your caviar class wealth cycle. And, when Greenspan and the rest of the usual toadies are busy admitting their failures AND the necessity of what you'd otherwise be calling socialism.. well, I guess you'll have to forgive me for rubbing your nose in it a little.

I didn't watch it? Where do you think I got the $70/hr from. There are plenty of CEOs that have made mistakes and it was just as enraging to me as it probably was to you to see some GMC CEO fly in on a lear jet and beg congress for moeny. Just because I value low end labor different than you doesn't mean I don't also have problems with the way some CEOs run their companies. You can't say what my opinoin has done or not done to the economy because you haven't taken the time to understand what it is. the chicklen shit that you are has assumed my position for your own convenience.

Like I said above, dude. THIS is not the first time you and I have taken up pistols on this issue. You can get defensive all you want but it's not MY fault that your FIRST and PRIMARY response amounts to whittling down the cost of labor despite the FAILURE of the oh so holy caviar class. I'd bet jacks, joes and dominoes that you can't name one occasion where you were MORE critical of empty 7 figure suits than "overpaid" proletariats. If this indicates more than you want to admit.. well.. again, this IS a rematch issue.

and yes, I can very well say what your economic opinion has done to this economy, Bern. Are you or are you NOT a proponent of as close to free market capitalism as can be achieved? At the COST of our SOL and Average Wage, no less? Because paying for cheap mexican ghetto labor IS easier on the budget than paying American labor cost WHILE preserving the caviar class? How far am I off the mark, Bern?


Now, again, don't get all poopy pants on me here just because i'm rubbing your nose in the shitgrass you enjoyed relieving yourself with during the last handful of years. Mayors of laborville and employment trends are not misguided just because you don't want to admit how bad your applied economic theories have been for the US as a WHOLE.


But, I see that you are quickly reaching for the eject button so..

 

[sealybobo]

Until you accept the cupibablity of everyone in this mess, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS like Carter and Frank there is little point conversing with you. I agree whole heartedly that if Bush wanted to cut taxes he shoulda reigned in spending. The problem with your Bush bashing and basically saying the last 8 years got it wrong which somehow inherently means Obama will get it right, is Obama is doing exactly the same thing, just tilting the scales a little more, less in favor of tax cuts and shit load of spending which last time I checked has never turned an economy around.

Really? Because it seems like that's exactly what Reagan did to become a God in your eyes. He spent his way out of his recession.

He also bailed out the Big 3. Don't forget that.

Obama is doing EXACTLY what Reagan did. So you should love it.

And no, he is not doing exactly what Bush did. Did he give Paulson & the banks $350 billion and then close his eyes while they stole it?

And excuse me, but Obama just uncovered a UBS scandal where the rich were avoiding paying taxes. So since we both agree that Dems and GOP love to spend, at least Obama is going to tax the rich so the entire tax burden doesn't fall on us and the debt. That alone makes Democrats much smarter than the GOP.

Plus, we don't spend as much as you guys do. Sure Obama has to spend, but he has to in order to get out of the hole Bush put him in.

Clinton gave Bush a surplus and Bush doubled the debt.

I bet Obama's end numbers will be better than Bush's. Every aspect of the economy will be better. Wages, unemployment, dow jones, housing, etc.

If your last statement is true he's starting himself behind the 8 ball quite a bit. Until you can show you have some sense of objectivity there again is no point in debating with you. I could tell you and show the sky was blue and you would say it's red. that's kinda what debating with you is like.

Except you haven't been right once. If you were, I would listen.

And I'm sorry, but dealing with Republicans and conservatives is a very difficult thing to do. You never give an inch but always want us to give up a mile. I'll start conceeding that the dems aren't perfect when I get the sense you understand the GOP sucks.

 

[sealybobo]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

noone ever said thats what they make...however its what the company is paying out...it's a lot of money

So what? So is $20 million dollars a year for a CEO, yet they continue to pay that.

And they promised pensions to their retirees. Do you approve of them RENIGGING on those promises?

It was a lot easier for the companies back in the day to promise future benefits instead of paying raises right then and there. So now it is time to pay up. Or, they can just go bankrupt and renig.

And here I go again saying the same things over and over to you guys, socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

In other words, the tax payers will have to pick up all those pensions if the Big 3 go bankrupt? Fuck that! I'd rather give them the loans they are asking for.

 

[sealybobo]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

noone ever said thats what they make...however its what the company is paying out...it's a lot of money

Nonsense.

Bernie just attempted to pass that off as truth in this thread.

They do this all the time. We were talking about nationalizing the Federal Reserve and one of them said, "ron paul never said he wanted to nationalize the banks".

So he is correct, and wrong at the same time.

 

[editec]

thats a good question and I'll see if I can look into it... I don't know if the 70 dollar number counts just for labor only or for the whole company including exec salaries and retirees etc...

I don't know

According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research -- who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read -- average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income -- hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants" -- as the foreign-owned factories are known -- was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.

source

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $28 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure.

Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program.

The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted recently, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

​

Do you get it NOW, Kevin?

Another perfect example of SPIN using HALF TRUTHS which give us outrageous headlines, but that really only serve to ADVANCE A LIE.

​

 

[sealybobo]

Big THREE auto workers do NOT make $70 per hour.

That number is designed to mislead people like Bernie.

That is the cost of current labor force AND ALL RETIREES divided by the number of hours worked by the current labor force.

Now I think you probably have been told that, but still you insist of passing a lie as a truth.

Why is that?

Personally I think you do that because you are an apologist for the capital class that is deperately seeking to cover their asses for the mess they made of this economy.

'Personally' when you start running with an inaccurate assumption, you look like a moron. I know exactly what the $70 represents, thanks. In reality it is the opposite that is misleading. When people like yourself and Shogun bemoan low wages you often conveniently leave out the value of the benefits they provide on top of your base pay.

Lets say healthcare cost $10k back in 1991 and today it costs $20k.

So isn't it misleading to say that under Bush, wages went up $10k?

That's the kind of shit you guys pulled for 8 years.

 

[Andrew2382]

thats a good question and I'll see if I can look into it... I don't know if the 70 dollar number counts just for labor only or for the whole company including exec salaries and retirees etc...

I don't know

According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research -- who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read -- average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income -- hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants" -- as the foreign-owned factories are known -- was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.

source

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $28 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure.

Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program.

The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted recently, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

​

Do you get it NOW, Kevin?

Another perfect example of SPIN using HALF TRUTHS which give us outrageous headlines, but that really only serve to ADVANCE A LIE.

​

my name isn't kevin?

Cause you quoted me then put all of that


and like I said...no one says these guys get paid 70 bucks an hour...the bottom line is what the company ahs to pay ou tbecause of bad union deals they made out for past and present employees

what i want to knowis does that $70 an hou rnumber also includes exeuctives or just labor?

 

[sealybobo]

thats a good question and I'll see if I can look into it... I don't know if the 70 dollar number counts just for labor only or for the whole company including exec salaries and retirees etc...

I don't know

source

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $28 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure.

Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program.

The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted recently, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

​

Do you get it NOW, Kevin?

Another perfect example of SPIN using HALF TRUTHS which give us outrageous headlines, but that really only serve to ADVANCE A LIE.

​

my name isn't kevin?

Cause you quoted me then put all of that


and like I said...no one says these guys get paid 70 bucks an hour...the bottom line is what the company ahs to pay ou tbecause of bad union deals they made out for past and present employees

what i want to knowis does that $70 an hou rnumber also includes exeuctives or just labor?

It includes executives. Expect they fudged that number any way they could to make it look outragous.